{"id":74945,"date":"2000-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000"},"modified":"2018-08-26T14:10:34","modified_gmt":"2018-08-26T08:40:34","slug":"principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"Principal, Madhav Institute Of &#8230; vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Principal, Madhav Institute Of &#8230; vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Rao<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.G.Balakrishna, M.Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPRINCIPAL, MADHAV INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t02\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.G.Balakrishna, M.Jagannadha Rao\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p> M.\n<\/p>\n<p>      JAGANNADHA RAO,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Madhav  Institute  of   Technology  and  Science,<br \/>\nGwalior,  represented  by  its Principal  is  the  appellant<br \/>\nbefore\tus.   The Ist respondent, who is an employee  and  a<br \/>\ndiploma\t  holder  in  Engineering   wanted  to\timprove\t his<br \/>\neducational   qualification   and   joined   the   part-time<br \/>\nEngineering  Course  (Evening  Session)\t  of  the  appellant<br \/>\nInstitute  in  1996  and also paid the tuition fee  for\t the<br \/>\ndegree\tcourse.\t  This part-time course was started in\tthis<br \/>\nInstitute  in  1991.   It appears that the State  of  Madhya<br \/>\nPradesh,  with a view to control population growth wanted to<br \/>\ngive   certain\tincentives  to\t those\twho  had   undergone<br \/>\n&#8216;sterilisation.&#8217;  Such persons were given &#8216;green cards&#8217; by a<br \/>\nGovt.  Circular dated 1.10.85, which said that &#8216;children&#8217; of<br \/>\nthe  green card holders would not have to pay fee in Medical<br \/>\nColleges,  Engineering\tColleges\/Polytechnic   Colleges\t and<br \/>\nIndustrial   Training\t Institutes.\t Subsequently,\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  issued another order on 6.11.87, extending\tthis<br \/>\nbenefit to the &#8216;persons&#8217; who had undergone the sterilisation<br \/>\noperation  and\tit was said that there would be &#8216;waiver&#8217;  of<br \/>\ntuition\t fee  in Medical and Engineering Colleges  in  their<br \/>\ncases  too.  The Ist respondent who joined the Institute  in<br \/>\n1996 and who paid tuition fee for 1996-97 then filed W.P.906<br \/>\nof 1997 claiming that under the above order dated 6.11.87 of<br \/>\nGovernment  of Madhya Pradesh, he was entitled to  exemption<br \/>\nfrom  paying the fee in the college and that he was entitled<br \/>\nto  refund  of the tuition fee already paid for 1996-97\t and<br \/>\nexemption  for\tthe  future.  The State contended  that\t the<br \/>\nabove  orders were not applicable to &#8216;part-time&#8217; courses.  (<br \/>\nThere  is  no  dispute\tthat  so  far  as  this\t College  is<br \/>\nconcerned, the regular courses ( i.e.  other than part-time)<br \/>\nwere  admitted to grant-in-aid and that these part-time were<br \/>\nnot so admitted).  In other words, it was contended that the<br \/>\nIst respondent was not entitled to exemption from payment of<br \/>\ntuition fee.  A further contention was advanced by the State<br \/>\nthat the first order dated 1.10.85 was issued in the name of<br \/>\nthe  Governor  of  the\tState\tunder  Article\t166  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  of India ( the one which conferred benefit  on<br \/>\nthe  &#8216;children&#8217; who had undergone sterilisation) whereas the<br \/>\nsecond\torder dated 6.11.87 ( which conferred the benefit on<br \/>\nthe  persons  who had undergone the sterilisation)  was\t not<br \/>\nissued\tin  the name of the Governor and did not confer\t any<br \/>\nenforceable right on the persons who were claiming exemption<br \/>\nunder  the second order.  A learned Single Judge of the High<br \/>\nCourt  of  Madhya  Pradesh , in his judgment  dated  26.8.97<br \/>\ndismissed  the\tWrit petition on the ground that the  second<br \/>\norder  dated  6.11.87 having not been issued in the name  of<br \/>\nthe Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\nit  was not enforceable.  But, on appeal in LPA.218 of 1997,<br \/>\nthe  Division  Bench allowed the Writ petition\tand  granted<br \/>\nrelief stating that the appellant-Institute had no case that<br \/>\nGovernment  orders  were not binding on it and hence it\t was<br \/>\nbound  to implement the second order of the Government dated<br \/>\n6.11.87\t The  exemption was general in nature and  had\tbeen<br \/>\nmade\t applicable\tto\t  &#8216;all&#8217;\t    colleges\t and<br \/>\npolytechnics\/Institutes.   The\tappellant   was\t accordingly<br \/>\ndirected  to  grant exemption in regard to the tuition\tfee.<br \/>\nIt is against this judgment that the Institute has preferred<br \/>\nthis  appeal.  During the pendency of this appeal, there was<br \/>\nno  stay  of  the judgment of the Division  Bench.   We\t are<br \/>\ninformed  that\tthe  Ist respondent is yet to  complete\t the<br \/>\ndegree course and is still studying in this Institute in the<br \/>\npart-time  course.   In\t this  appeal,\tthe  learned  Senior<br \/>\ncounsel\t   Sri\t A.K.\t  Chitale,    appearing\t  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant-Institute  has  contended  that the order  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  of Madhya Pradesh dated 6.11.87 would never have<br \/>\nbeen  intended to apply to private colleges\/Institutes where<br \/>\nthe  courses  were  not\t admitted  to  grant-in-aid  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment.   The  Government  could not  have\timposed\t any<br \/>\nobligation  on\tthe unaided Colleges\/Institutes inasmuch  as<br \/>\nthere  was  no other way whereby  these\t Colleges\/Institutes<br \/>\ncould  meet  the  expenditure for these\t part-time  courses.<br \/>\nAdmittedly,  the  part-time course in this college  was\t not<br \/>\nadmitted  to  grant-in-aid by the Government.  The State  of<br \/>\nMadhya\tPradesh has filed a counter in this Court supporting<br \/>\nthe appellant-Institute and has clarified as follows:  &#8220;That<br \/>\nit is submitted that the Circulars dated 1.10.85 and 6.11.87<br \/>\nhave  been issued by the Government for providing facilities<br \/>\nof  exemption from payment of tuition fees to the green-card<br \/>\nholders\t and these words only in respect of regular courses.<br \/>\nThe  respondent\t No.1  was granted  admission  in  part-time<br \/>\ncourse\twhich is under self-financing scheme and  Government<br \/>\ndo   not  provide  any\tfund   for  the\t same.\t Hence\t the<br \/>\nabove-mentioned\t Circulars are not applicable in the case of<br \/>\nthe  respondent No.1&#8221; The above clarification issued by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  would  mean that the part-time courses  in\tthis<br \/>\ncollege\t which\twere not regular courses and which were\t not<br \/>\nadmitted to aid, were never intended by the Government to be<br \/>\ncovered\t by the orders dated 1.10.85 and 6.11.87.  The State<br \/>\nstated\tthat  there  was thus no obligation on\tthe  private<br \/>\nunaided\t Colleges\/Institutes  to grant such  exemption\tfrom<br \/>\npayment\t of tuition fee in respect of part-time courses.  In<br \/>\nour  view, there can be no difficulty in granting  exemption<br \/>\nto  the\t aided courses in private Colleges\/Institutes.\t But<br \/>\nthere  will be difficulty in extending exemption to  unaided<br \/>\ncourses\t in  private  Colleges\/Institutes.   The  reason  is<br \/>\nobvious.  If Government is not to meet the teaching expenses<br \/>\nin  part- time courses and if the College is not to  collect<br \/>\nthe tuition fee, the College will have to bear the financial<br \/>\nburden\twithout the corresponding right to collect fee\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  students  to  meet its legitimate\texpenses  for  these<br \/>\npart-time  courses.  There is also no material to show\tthat<br \/>\nbefore\tsuch an administrative order was issued the  private<br \/>\ncolleges  or  institutes  agreed  to  bear  the\t expenditure<br \/>\nthemselves  even  if grant-in-aid was not extended to  these<br \/>\npart-time  courses.   The  Government,\tin  our\t view,\t was<br \/>\ntherefore justified in making the clarification as aforesaid<br \/>\nin  its\t counter  affidavit  and it appears to\tbe  quite  a<br \/>\nreasonable  stand taken by them.  Learned Senior counsel for<br \/>\nthe Ist respondent, Sri M.N.  Krishnamani contended that but<br \/>\nfor  the  representation made by the State in  its  Circular<br \/>\ndated  6.11.87, the Ist respondent would not have  undergone<br \/>\nsterilisation.\t The  Government  and the  Institutes  were,<br \/>\ntherefore, now estopped from denying benefit of the order to<br \/>\nthe   Ist  respondent.\t We  are   unable  to  accept\tthis<br \/>\ncontention.   The Circular dated 6.11.87 is one addressed to<br \/>\nall  Chief  Medical and Health Officers in  Madhya  Pradesh.<br \/>\nWhile  we  may assume that the Circular has been  issued  to<br \/>\nbenefit those who have undergone sterilisation, it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid  that  any\t personal  representation was  made  to\t Ist<br \/>\nrespondent.   Therefore, no question of promissory  estoppel<br \/>\narises.\t  There\t is  also no material to hold that  the\t Ist<br \/>\nrespondent  has\t undergone  the sterilisation  operation  in<br \/>\ncontemplation  of taking up this part-time course.  It might<br \/>\nhave  been  for other good reasons relevant to the  family&#8217;s<br \/>\nfinancial   status  to\tmeet   extra  expenditure  for\tmore<br \/>\nchildren.   In\tfact,  if  he  were  acting  upon  any\tsuch<br \/>\nrepresentation\tin  1996,  &#8211; when he  joined  the  part-time<br \/>\ncourse\the would not have paid the tuition fee for  1996-97.<br \/>\nThe  reasonable\t inference is that he was not even aware  of<br \/>\nthis Circular when he joined the course and it was only much<br \/>\nlater,\twhen  he  learnt about the circular that  he  sought<br \/>\nrefund\tfor 1996-97 and exemption for the future.  So far as<br \/>\nthe Institute is concerned, it never made any representation<br \/>\nto  the\t Ist  respondent.  It was then argued  for  the\t Ist<br \/>\nrespondent that at the time when this Institute was founded,<br \/>\nlot  of\t monies\t came from Government and  the\tpublic\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore,  the\t fact  that  for this course  there  was  no<br \/>\ngrant-in-aid,  made  no difference.  We cannot\tagree.\t The<br \/>\ncapital\t expenditure  incurred at the time of  founding\t the<br \/>\nInstitute  is  different  from the running expenses  of\t the<br \/>\nteaching  staff every month.  Learned Senior counsel for the<br \/>\nIst  respondent\t then  contended  that\t if  there  was\t  no<br \/>\ngrant-in-aid,  then  the State must be directed to  pay\t the<br \/>\ntuition fee in respect of such individual candidates who had<br \/>\nundergone sterilisation, though the part-time course was not<br \/>\naided.\t In  our view, it is not possible to issue any\tsuch<br \/>\ndirection  in this Writ petition.  Grant-in-aid, either\t for<br \/>\nthe  Institution  or for the School or for individuals is  a<br \/>\nmatter of policy.  In view of the clarification given in the<br \/>\ncounter\t affidavit  set out above, if any such direction  is<br \/>\ngiven  by this Court to benefit individuals, it would amount<br \/>\nto  amendment of the existing government policy by way of  a<br \/>\njudicial  order\t and  amounts  to extension  of\t benefit  to<br \/>\npersons\t to  whom the policy was not intended to apply.\t  We<br \/>\nare,  therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by\t the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench\t of  the  High Court in\t allowing  the\tWrit<br \/>\npetition.   The\t appeal is allowed and the judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nDivision Bench in the LPA is set aside and the Writ petition<br \/>\nis  dismissed.\tIt will be necessary for the Ist  respondent<br \/>\nto pay the arrears in the tuition fee for the past years and<br \/>\nfor  the rest of the course.  In case any representation  is<br \/>\nmade   for  instalments,  the\tappellant  may\tgrant\teasy<br \/>\ninstalments  or obtain a bond from the appellant for payment<br \/>\nof  the tuition fee covering the back period.  So far as the<br \/>\nfuture years of the course are concerned, the Ist respondent<br \/>\nhas any way to pay the fee.  Subject to the above directions<br \/>\nagainst the Ist respondent, the appeal is allowed.  The Writ<br \/>\npetition is dismissed.\tThere will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Principal, Madhav Institute Of &#8230; vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000 Author: J Rao Bench: K.G.Balakrishna, M.Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: PRINCIPAL, MADHAV INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/08\/2000 BENCH: K.G.Balakrishna, M.Jagannadha Rao JUDGMENT: M. JAGANNADHA RAO,J. The Madhav [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Principal, Madhav Institute Of ... vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Principal, Madhav Institute Of ... vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-26T08:40:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Principal, Madhav Institute Of &#8230; vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T08:40:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1621,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000\",\"name\":\"Principal, Madhav Institute Of ... vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T08:40:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Principal, Madhav Institute Of &#8230; vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Principal, Madhav Institute Of ... vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Principal, Madhav Institute Of ... vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-26T08:40:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Principal, Madhav Institute Of &#8230; vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T08:40:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000"},"wordCount":1621,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000","name":"Principal, Madhav Institute Of ... vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T08:40:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/principal-madhav-institute-of-vs-rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-on-2-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Principal, Madhav Institute Of &#8230; vs Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors on 2 August, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74945","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}